Barry Richards vs Michael Atherton

[PlayerComparisons]

Two opening batsmen

 

[sayon basak]

Barry Richards played only 4 tests.

 

[ataraxia]

How many would he have played if Cummins were available?

 

[kyear2]

Barry Richards

 

[sayon basak]

How many would he have played if Cummins were available?

This deserves a new thread.

 

[Coronis]

Barry Richards

What a laugh

 

[capt_Luffy]

As a Test batsman, Yashasvi Jaiswal>Barry Richards

 

[Coronis]

Atherton has one series better than Barry’s entire test career. Plus another 110 tests on top of that.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lol, I all of a sudden I remembered saw a "analytical study" here something to do with 'dead runs' that somehow adjusted Barry's average over Don't.....

 

[ataraxia]

Atherton has one series better than Barry’s entire test career. Plus another 110 tests on top of that.

Nah, two or three. Out of thirty-one. Conservatively extrapolate Barry's 4 tests to a decade's worth – an extrapolation that based on FC record makes sense – and he ends up better than Atherton 19 times out of 20. I mean, you can't logically fault Barry for lack of longevity compared to Atherton.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nah, two or three. Out of thirty-one. Extrapolate Barry's 4 tests to a decade's worth – an extrapolation that based on FC record makes sense – and he ends up better than Atherton 19 times out of 20. I mean, you can't logically fault Barry for lack of longevity compared to Atherton.

So then Eddie Paynter, Harry Brook and Taslim Arif >> Sachin Tendulkar?? Of course I have to fault Barry on longevity, what he did in FC is meaningless in a Test debate.

 

[ataraxia]

So then Eddie Paynter, Harry Brook and Taslim Arif >> Sachin Tendulkar?? Of course I have to fault Barry on longevity, what he did in FC is meaningless in a Test debate.

Obviously not.

I think that FC performance is extremely relevant to how Barry would perform in a hypothetical test.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Obviously not.

I think that FC performance is extremely relevant to how Barry would perform in a hypothetical test.

Why his performance in a hypothetical Test come in instead of what he had done?? The better Test batsman is the one who has done better in Test matches as simple as that. Graeme Hick is not better in Tests than Andrew Strauss or Michael Bevan than Damien Martyn. Everything else is just that, a hypothesis.

 

[ataraxia]

Why his performance in a hypothetical Test come in instead of what he had done?? The better Test batsman is the one who has done better in Test matches as simple as that. Graeme Hick is not better in Tests than Andrew Strauss or Michael Bevan than Damien Martyn. Everything else is just that, a hypothesis.

I cannot fathom rating a pre-1980 test player and completely ignoring all their FC performances. That method is what leads to the likes of Paynter being overrated, not the other way round. Hick and Bevan failed over an at least decent sample size of tests and thus aren't that good (but Bevan is very obviously better than his average of 29, a conclusion that cannot be obtained by ignoring his FC record).

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Probably the most ridiculous comparison ever

 

[ataraxia]

Probably the most ridiculous comparison ever

You must not come here often

 

[flibbertyjibber]

You must not come here often

4 games v over 100 is really stupid.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I cannot fathom rating a pre-1980 test player and completely ignoring all their FC performances. That method is what leads to the likes of Paynter being overrated, not the other way round. Hick and Bevan failed over an at least decent sample size of tests and thus aren't that good (but Bevan is very obviously better than his average of 29, a conclusion that cannot be obtained by ignoring his FC record).

I am not asking you to completely ignore their FC records. Of course I believe Barry to be a much better batsman than Atherton; he ranked 23rd in my best batsmen list and would make any team I make before Mike. But as with WG, who ranks as high as 2nd; Barry's best came in FC, which won't had been a problem if not his everything came in FC. Hence, ranking him a better Test batsmen based on 4 matches (mind the word, Test) doesn't really makes much sense to me.

 

[ataraxia]

I am not asking you to completely ignore their FC records. Of course I believe Barry to be a much better batsman than Atherton; he ranked 23rd in my best batsmen list and would make any team I make before Mike. But as with WG, who ranks as high as 2nd; Barry's best came in FC, which won't had been a problem if not his everything came in FC. Hence, ranking him a better Test batsmen based on 4 matches (mind the word, Test) doesn't really makes much sense to me.

Eh I don't like a view that means, in a situation where arbitrarily half the polls specify "test" and the other half don't, which is which is actually meant to change people's votes, often to a wild degree. It means that votes are determined as much by terminology as opinion.

In other words, I think that constantly switching one's thinking from the plane of "rating a player on how they would perform in a hypothetical test based on test and FC performance" to "rating a player on test performance" and back is Not Good.

 

[StephenZA]

So why call it a player comparison? Ask the real question. Who had the better Test career? Then the obvious answer is Atherton, because he had a Test career. Or else ask people who they think the better player is? And then the answer is Richards. But trying to 'create' controversy because a clear question isn't asked seems well pretty sad.